Appeal No. 2001-0544 Page 2
Application No. 08/195,048
c) removing the wash solution containing phenol or a
phenol derivative,
d) detecting the amount of analyte bound to the solid-
phase.
The examiner relies on the following references:
McClune et al. (McClune ‘999) 5,176,999 Jan. 05, 1993
McClune (McClune ‘983) 4,828,983 May 09, 1989
Katz et al. (Katz) 4,496,654 Jan. 29, 1985
Kricka et al. (Kricka) 4,598,044 Jul. 01, 1986
Wehner et al. (Wehner) 4,764,468 Aug. 16, 1988
Craig et al. (Craig) 4,810,630 Mar. 07, 1989
Claims 14, 15, 19-22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of McClune ’999, McClune ‘983, and Katz.1
Claims 14, 15, 19, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Kricka, Wehner, and Craig.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Kricka, Wehner, Craig, and McClune ‘999.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack
of adequate written description.
We reverse the obviousness rejections and affirm the written description
rejection.
Background
The specification discloses “a washing solution, containing stabilizers for
1 The statement of the rejection in the Examiner’s Answer applied this rejection to claims “14-15,
18-22 and 25” (emphasis added). However, claim 18 had already been canceled. See Paper
No. 29, filed January 9, 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007